Archive for November, 2010

Some of us never get enough punishment which is why I decided to start a PhD Leadership degree at the age of 40. Needless to say it is an adjustment. One of the things I vowed to myself before starting was that I would not loose touch with the outside world while in the program. Hence, this weekend I decided to try and catch up on current events only to discover that all universes end up colliding with each other.

Here is a link to a fascinating Charlie Rose interview of Siddhartha Mukherjee regarding his new book The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

Type IV: we intentionally force others into solving the wrong problems precisely, to their detriment and for our gain and benefit.

llll

The definitions do not imply malice, just things to be careful about (although authors would probably disagree with me on this hence book title).

llll

While listening to the Mukerjee interview, he describes the evolution of thought with respect to radical mastectomies and I saw it as a clear example of a Type IV error. According to Mukherjee, proponents of the radical mastectomy procedure inflicted damage on thousands of womens bodies until patients started demanding empirical evidence which showed there was no difference in benefit (i.e. nothing gained) between regular mastectomy, radical mastectomy and lumpectomy plus radiation. Hence, those who underwent the procedure had been intentionally convinced to solve the wrong problem precisely (i.e. instead of focusing on curing cancer the focus became the removal of the breast and surrounding tissue in a very precise manner).

llll

In addition, Mukherjee points out that the term “radical” in and of itself caused group think (i.e. what patient when trying to fight for his/her life would refuse “radical” treatment?). This group think enabled the solving of the wrong problem to continue until a select few asked for what the other book we are reading The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable refers to as silent evidence (i.e. data proving there was no benefit) to be revealed.

llll

It would be hard to say that doctors practicing the radical mastectomy approach were maliciously trying to mutilate women. What they failed to do was verify their assumptions were correct before inflicting permanent damage. To put the group think into philosophical terms, they were blinded by their own semiotics (cultural signs, in this case medical culture, such as nomenclature and conventions, aka biases, that reinforced their belief the radical mastectomy approach was correct, i.e. caused detection errors).